Answer:
Debra Medina claimed that nullification was possible by state laws that could neutralize federal laws. She based her claim on the 10th Amendment, which establishes that any power not constitutionally granted to the federal government can be held by the states.
Explanation:
The Constitution doesn´t enable the nullification of federal laws by the states, and several academics have stated that it could be illegal since the Supremacy Clause pronounces federal laws as the supreme national law. So nullification would overthrow the constitutional interpretation held for 200 years.
Let us also remember that Gov. Rick Perry, who supported nullification, had already skipped the nullification issue by starting a debate about secession. This debate is a reminder of the time when state rejection of racial integration had to be stopped by the Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka.
Answer:
not notice the older woman
Explanation:
With a lot of people in one place, it more difficult for Arlette to see the older woman and notice her problem. She probably only looks at what is in front of her eyes and in her way, not the sides if she is in a hurry or entertained with something. The noise who emit the people blocks the sound of the pain of the old lady.
The way the chief has performed an act of gift giving in a
way that forms sharing accumulated wealth and enhancing the chief’s prestige is
a form of redistribution. Redistribution is a form of having to share or
distribute in a way that the individual will achieve his or her goals in means
of having to produce equality among the people or society.
Answer:
“Due process rights” you sure you worded that right?
Explanation:
Anyways the 5th amendment is “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”
this means that if you accuse someone you can’t just get them thrown in jail you have to take it to court hence “without due process of law”
hope it helps :)
